Rabu, 27 Juni 2012

BMA doctors argue assisted suicide is 'never justified' as they vote against euthanasia

BMA doctors argue assisted suicide is 'never justified' as they vote against euthanasia

  • Campaigners say current system is 'morally repugnant'
  • Doctors decide killing of patients 'can never be justified'

By Claire Bates

PUBLISHED: 10:18 EST, 27 June 2012 | UPDATED: 11:19 EST, 27 June 2012

Doctors have reiterated their opposition to assisted dying at the British Medical Association’s conference today.

Campaigners wanted delegates to agree to take a neutral stance on the issue, but members of the BMA voted against this proposal. One delegate argued that killing patients was 'never justified' likening it to murder.

The Healthcare Professionals for Assisted Dying (HPAD) had called for the BMA to move its position from opposition to 'studied' neutrality.

HPAD’s chairman Professor Raymond Tallis presented the motion at the conference, saying that assisted dying should be a matter for society as a whole and not just for the medical profession.

Locked-in syndrome patient Tony Nicklinson was left completely paralysed after a stroke seven years ago. He has campaigned for the right to die

Locked-in syndrome patient Tony Nicklinson was left completely paralysed after a stroke seven years ago. He has campaigned for the right to die via assisted suicide

He also called on the union to adopt a neutral position on change in the law, saying the current system was 'morally repugnant'.

'Those of you who argue that palliative care can address all the problems of all patients are simply ignoring clinical reality,' he said.

'A reality in which some patients seeking an end to their terrible suffering resort to death from dehydration and starvation, botched suicides or dreadful journeys to die abroad.

'Neutrality is appropriate because the medical profession itself is divided.

'The BMA should adopt a position, not of opposition or indeed of support, but of studied neutrality towards a change of law to permit assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults.'

However, doctors speaking at the conference cautioned that a change in position would send out the wrong message.

In rebuttal, Dr Dai Samuel said: 'We must question what as doctors we stand for. I simply stand for looking after my patients and providing high quality care.

'I do not consider the killing of patients - whatever the reason is - justified. That is murder and I cannot commit that offence.'

BMA's outgoing chairman of council Dr Hamish Meldrum urged doctors not to take a neutral stance.

He said: 'The first part of this motion says that this is a matter for society and not for the medical profession.

'The medical profession is not only part of society, but it would be members of the medical profession that would have to carry out the wishes of society were there to be a change in the law.

'On (the second part of the motion) it says the BMA should adopt a neutral position on a change in the law.

'I think adopting a neutral position is probably the worst of all options. Neutrality does tend to exclude us from the argument, an argument which would have a huge bearing on the working lives of doctors.

'I don't come to this from any strong religious view but I do come to these views from having worked as a doctors for 40 years - mostly in general practice - where I have always felt I have been able, in almost every occasion, to support my patients when they were dying without having to actively end their lives.'

Campaign group Care Not Killing welcomed the decision.

Spokesman Dr Peter Saunders said: 'Majority medical opinion remains opposed to assisted dying and this vote is a victory for common sense.

'We hope that the BMA will now continue its valuable work in campaigning for high quality compassionate care for patients at the end of life.'

Here's what other readers have said. Why not add your thoughts, or debate this issue live on our message boards.

The comments below have been moderated in advance.

  • Newest
  • Oldest
  • Best rated
  • Worst rated

Of course they are against it. Terminally ill people are huge cash cows for the medical industry. The more these people suffer, the more treatments and medications the doctors can give to them. But if they decide to end their suffering, then...no more money can be made off of them. If someone is terminally ill and living in such pain, misery and suffering, they should have the right to decide whether or not they continue to live.

Report abuse

So sorry for Tony, and all the people suffering who want to end there life .Hope there will come a time when it will be legal , and soon , instead of ending up suffering and being kept alive in a hospital or home against your will.

Report abuse

surely continuing suffering is tantamount to torture and we are against torture.

Report abuse

Just you wait until you are in permanent pain and have no hope of recovery to lead a relatively normal life.

Report abuse

If you ask them nicely, or more importantly, point out how much money they'll save.....they might starve you of food and water ( liverpool pathway style ). It aint pretty but its humane...apparently. Doctors are so far up their own backsides, you can't tell where they end and begin.

Report abuse

What a typically useless stance from the BMA. Not allowed to permit someone to die with dignity, but more than willing to play God and keep someone alive while they test their useless medicines on one guinea pig after another. I carry a living will from my motorcycling days. i don't want to be a fully-functioning brain in a vegetative body. Unfortunately, I can't trust the medical profession to respect my wishes, so I've booked my date with destiny abroad.

Report abuse

Yet doctors are killing thousands of old sick people by starvation and dehydration by putting them on a pathway to death when they want to free up hospital beds.

Report abuse

yes, but these moralistic doctors are not the ones who are 'living the lingering death' are they? Some doctors have enough compassion to want to assist and should be allowed too without fear of prosecution to help those who want a dignifed end to their life.

Report abuse

i am not a doctor, and i sympathise with their position, but i really believe that if someone wants to die, it is only humane to help them die. the people who seek euthanasia are in immense pain and, if they could, they would perform the act of suicide themselves. it seems cruel to force someone to continue to live, when all they want to do is die.

Report abuse

We would not let an animal suffer in this way. Are we putting animals above humans ?? There needs to be a three step system, if after the third step a person is deemed to have understood all that they are asking for then I think when they are ready and ask a final injection could be administered.

Report abuse

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

Diposting oleh di

Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar

Langganan: Posting Komentar (Atom)